The Franken – Lieberman Smackdown

Gee, you dressed up your penis and use it as your picture. Cool.

What a smug prick you appear to be.

"Do we need a bit less gentility and tad more WWE Raw?"

Well, Franken has shown once more he can represent the fringist fringe. (What he said to Sotomayor about a "right" to Internet service from cable companies was already a real winner.) I do think that it's better to be honest, even if in Franken's case he can be a clown or a prick, rather than a phony "states-person." (Look at what some of those pillars of society have sought and won as payoffs to pass health care "reform" legislation on schedule.)

It's not what most want these days, but I'll visit the serious issues related to Jazz's question for a moment. Many lefties despise the "undemocratic" Senate and want it either abolished or (more often, and much worse) converted into a second House of Representatives or something similar. It's also of note that these people also have disdain or contempt for the states and their proper role (and constitutional federalism), and want everything (naturally) centralized in Washington (while the role of the states is even further reduced). Lazare's whining in just this light is a textbook example (complete with pathetic reference to the Preamble as justification for abolishing the Senate). It's merely an afterthought now that such people also would not want to have Senators once again selected by state governments. (They also typically want direct election of the President, of course.)

Thanks for that clarification, Jazz. Two sets of rules, for gentlemen?

But with that in mind, I’ll pose a question for the populace. The Senate, as I note in today’s column, has long been considered the more distinguished, deliberative body where decorum is the rule, generally taken to an almost archaic degree. Is that a neccesary and good thing for us? Or is it a relic of a bygone age that no longer serves a purpose? Do we need a bit less gentility and tad more WWE Raw? Or, to put it another way, do the long standing rules and traditions improve the process or do they dampen the passion? Perhaps the voters would like to see a bit more fire in the belly and less Miss Manners. Your thoughts?

What we need is a ittle more honesty and a little less hypocrisy; a little more down-to-earthness and a little less drama; a little more transparency and a little less trying to fool most of the people most of the time.

I am referring to the drama like McCain's "I have never done that," while sure as hell he has; I am referring to the hypocrisy of " we would never filibuster this or that," we would never block such a vote, we would never invoke such parliamentary procedures, etc.,etc., while sure as hell they have done it time and time again. Need I keep going?

I don't care about decorum, or gentility, or "distinguishdness" or traditions, as long as these legislators do what they have been elected by the people to do: the people's business, without drama, without lies, without insulting the intelligence and the sensibilities of the voters who put them there in the first place.

I much rather have a down-to-earth, honest, plain-talking Senator than a "distiguished," smooth-talking, waxing, aristocratic old bastard who will stab his colleagues and the voters in the back at the drop of a promise of a Committee Chairmanship, etc.

I will take one exception with what HemmD said:

"Making this anything more than tight time scheduling due to Republican delaying tactics is ridiculous."

There are one of two possibilities here. Either:
1. HemmD is aware of some sort of hidden clause in our Constitution which forbids the United States legislature from crafting any new laws after midnight, Dec. 25, 2009
or
2. Somebody else is being ridiculous.

This was not a filibuster. This was saying ten minutes and thirty seconds was unacceptable when ten minutes was ok. Three other Senators had already gotten an extra "moment' earlier that day by unanimous consent, two of them Democrats.

Charles Bishop agrees with you.

They are the nearest thing to nobility we have in this country.

Hardly, you forget the Supreme Court.

jazz
glad to see your article included the fact that McCain had issued the same rebuff to "Senator Mark Dayton (also, coincidentally enough, from Minnesota) back in 2002 during the Iraq war debate."

Making this anything more than tight time scheduling due to Republican delaying tactics is ridiculous.


As to the larger question of proper decorum in the Senate, lot's of luck. To become a Senator under today's high priced media driven elections, I doubt there's any Senator who actually remembers what he really believes. They can all tell you what "they stand for," but these guys long ago gave up all but partisan politics.

The Senate sees itself as peers of the realm for a kingdom that has no king. They are the nearest thing to nobility we have in this country. Bankrupt nobility owing their subsistence to the choir of lobbyists happy to pay them for their vote.

Relax the formality, just let Congressmen carry canes like in the old days =P.

No, I think we should keep the decorum. If not, the congressional moles for [insert super-rich monopoly here] will come to session wearing loaded sidearms and then the People really will just be a facade for who really runs the joint.

Forcing these seedy man-sharks posing as gentlemen to at least use the vernacular may open their eyes to the fact that consideration of others actually can exist. Grifting sociopaths and narcissists need these reminders now and then. And in summating them thusly, I assure you I'm using the same decorum I espouse. If I wrote out how I really feel about them, I'd probably get banned for profanity.